TABLE 3.

Effects of mentoring interventions on perceived amount and quality of time together as mentor–protégé dyad^a

	Total amount of time with the mentor/protégé is adequateb		Quality of time with mentor/protégé is good or excellentb
Comparison	OR (95% CI)	p value	OR (95% CI)	p value
Mentor training compared with control condition	1.67 (0.78–3. 61)	0.19	1.91 (0.86–4.27)	0.11
Mentor-training main effectc	1.22 (0.66–2.25)	0.52	2.00 (0.94–4.26)	0.07
Peer mentoring compared with control condition	1.65 (0.69–3.92)	0.26	2.02 (0.87–4.68)	0.10
Peer-mentoring main effectc	1.20 (0.65–2.23)	0.55	2.12 (1.00–4.48)	0.05
Combined intervention compared with control condition	1.47 (0.63–3.42)	0.37	4.24 (1.26–14.30)	0.02

^aThe odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p values were obtained from a logistic regression model that included terms for intervention group, respondent (mentor, protégé), and the response to the item at baseline. The model was fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for the association between the mentor and protégé responses in the same dyad; the technique of alternating logistic regressions was used, with the associations between outcomes within the same dyad being modeled using a constant log odds ratio.

^bOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

^cThe mentor-training main effect refers to the comparison of those receiving mentor training (either alone or in combination with peer mentoring) and those not receiving mentor training (peer mentoring alone or control). The peer-mentoring main effect refers to the comparison of those receiving peer mentoring (either alone or in combination with mentor training) and those not receiving peer mentoring (mentor training alone or control).